It is a clasic misunderstanding. The author refers to Windows as "the most popular desktop operating system of all time". Bill Gates became so staggeringly wealthy by striking very aggresive and very exclusive deals with ALL hardware manufacturers. Then (17 years ago), you couldn't buy a PC with any other operating system than Windows because of Bill's marketing prowess. Still today, you are hard pressed to get one with a decent operating system. Your average "Joe" wouldn't even think to ask.

These constraining contractual arrangements where Microsoft will come down hard on any PC maker with the temerity to offer anything else has result in a massive market penetration. Such market dominance gives you a ubiquitous product, not necessarily a popular one. It is a common mistake, of which this author is also guilty.

Deny choice and you get the same bland, insecure product everywhere. Only if choice were permitted, and people still chose an unstable, locked down, malware prone product, could you then rightly claim that that product is popular.

Force it on to an unsuspecting public and you have ubiquity not popularity. Please use the right word.

Oh, and the start button matter? Well, it's a small but telling example of how little choice you get with Microsoft. You can't change this, and you won't be able to change whatever else the Redmond millionaires dream up in its stead, because that will be thrust upon you too probably.

Even with choice, the market would've standardized down onto one or two major players. Having half a million options sounds fantastic in theory, till you try to make all of it interoperate and get work done smoothly.